You are on page 1of 47

2011 AZ Pavements / Materials Conference

An Overview of the New AASHTO


MEPDG Pavement Design Guide
15-16 November 2011
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona

Dr. M.W. Witczak


Principal Pavement Consultant
AMEC E&I
FEATURES OF THE AASHTO M-E
PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDE
 Developed under the US NAS (National Academy of Sciences)–
NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research program)

 $10,000,000 – 7 Year Effort (Largest Single US Transportation


Research Project in the History of the US)

 Project Team Leaders


 AC/Flexible Pavements: Dr. M.W.Witczak
 Rigid Pavements: Dr.M.Darter
Introduction
 Road and Highways are a very significant cost for agencies to
construct, maintain and rehabilitate (US Infrastructure worth
$1,000,000,000,000)

 Pavement design is a very complex process that involves many


variables as well as the variation of each variable. It is one of the most
complex Civil Engineering structures to design because we demand a
FS=1.0

 Mechanistic concepts provide a more rational and realistic


methodology for pavement design; however, pavement response
models are mathematically very complex and do not have single closed
form equation solution.

 The M-E PDG provides a consistent and practical method to design a


pavement for a desired level of reliability.

3
 The MEPDG considers a wide range of AC
Flexible pavement structural sections for :

 New pavement systems


 Overlay pavement systems

4
 Conventional Flexible Pavements
 Deep Strength HMA Pavements
 Full-Depth HMA Pavements
 "Semi-Rigid" Pavements

5
 HMA Overlay over Existing HMA:
New Existing
 AC Conventional AC
 AC Deep strength HMA pavements
 AC Full depth asphalt
 AC Semi-rigid pavements
 HMA over JPCP

 HMA over CRCP

6
 HMA over Fractured JPCP
 Crack and Seat
 Rubbilization

 HMA over Fractured CRCP


 Rubbilization

7
 The primary distresses considered in the MEPDG for flexible
pavements are:
 Permanent Deformation (rutting)

 AC Layers
 Unbound Base/Subbase/Subgrade Layers
 Total Rut Depth
 Fatigue Cracking
 Top Down-Longitudinal Cracking
 Bottom Up- Alligator Cracking
 Thermal Cracking

 In addition, pavement smoothness (IRI) is predicted based on


these primary distresses and other factors.

8
Major Asphalt Pavement Distresses

 Major pavement distresses


 Permanent deformation
 Fatigue cracking
 Transverse (Thermal) cracking

•How can we simulate these problems in


the lab?
Asphalt 9
Dynamic Modulus Test

10
Construction of E* Master Curve
 Dynamic Modulus Test (Level 1)
AASHTO TP62-03
5 Temperatures: 14, 40, 70, 100 and 130 oF
6 Frequencies: 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5 and 0.1 Hz

11
Construction of E* Master Curve
10

psi
 Time-Temp. Superposition

10 6 psi
6
14 oF

Modulus,10
 Use any arbitrary temperature 1

DynamicModulus,
40 oF
value as a reference 70 oF

 Normally this value is set to be 0.1 100 oF

Dynamic
at 70°F 130 oF
 Shift E* test results at other
0.01
temp. to reference temp. by -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
time-temp superposition Log Reduced
Log
Time, sTime,
Time, s s

 E* results are not changed 10

psi
 Can calculate E* values at any

temp. and freq. from master 6


Dynamic Modulus, 10 1
curve
0.1

0.01
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Log Reduced Time, s
12
Dynamic Modulus (E*)

Advantages:
 E* allows hierarchical characterization

 takes care of aging

 takes care of vehicle speed

 can be linked to PG Binder

 E* approximates FWD back-calculated modulus

 provides rational mechanistic material property for


distress prediction
 FHWA – AASHTO test protocols available

 Distress predictive models available

13
Indirect Tension Creep Test

14
Beam Fatigue Test

15
Rotational Viscometer

torque

sample

spindle
sample
chamber

16
Dynamic Shear Rheometer

torque (T)
deflection angle ()

height (h)

radius (r)

17
Assessment of Reliability

FC

FCfailure

FCAve

FCo

18
Hierarchical Input Process

 Level 1 (High Reliability)


Analysis of special problems
Usually will incorporate Testing
High Visibility/Risk/Cost Projects

 Level 2 (Medium Reliability)


Standard Design - Most Cases
(Rigorous but practical)

 Level 3 (Lower Reliability)


Lower impact/risk projects

19
HIERARCHIAL APPROACH
(AC MODULUS)

LEVEL MIX BINDER RELIABILITY 2


x,σI
1 E* Lab Test G*,δ Lab Test
f(ψ)

x
2 E*Predictive G*,δ Lab Test
equation f(ψ)
x,σII2

E*Predictive AC Grade to x,σIII2


3
equation properties f(ψ)

x
20
Hierarchical Approach in NCHRP 1-37A

 Major Reasons for Presence in M-E PDG

 Allows for a Quantifiable Decision to be Made,


Based on Benefit / Costs Regarding the Utility
of Using Detailed Engineering Tests and Data
Collection / Analysis Techniques Relative to
Simple, Empirical Correlations or Engineering
Guesses

21
Hierarchical Approach in MEPDG

 Major Reasons for Presence in M-E PDG

 Provide Quantifiable Methodology for Agency


to Prove Certain High Profile, High Importance
and High Cost Projects Justified

 “Most Advanced State of the Art Technology is


Mandated to Save Significant Cost Benefits”

22
Hierarchical Approach in MEPDG

 Major Reasons for Presence in M-E PDG

 Collary is also True

 “Many Projects do not Require Sophisticated ,


Advanced Engineering Approaches”

23
0.7
ESALs
0.6 Load Spectra

0.5
AC Rutting (in)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07 1.0E+08
Total Number of ESALs

25
 Actual Traffic load spectra yields higher levels of
rutting and cracking compared to the classical
E18KSAL’s.

 Traffic repetitions is a significant parameter


influencing pavement distress.

26
0.25

0.20
AC Rutting (in)

0.15

0.10

0.05

-
PG 82-22 PG 70-22 PG 64-22
Binder Grade
27
 Binder stiffness has a significant influence upon AC
rutting.

 As the binder stiffness increases, AC rutting


decreases.

 In fact, as the entire HMA mix stiffness increases,


AC rutting decreases.

28
0.7

0.6

0.5
AC Rutting (in)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Traffic Speed (mph)
29
 Traffic Speed Influences The AC Rutting.

 Creep Speed (Parking Lot, Intersection


Analysis) Causes Much More Damage To
The Pavement Compared To Faster Highway
Speeds.

30
0.30 MAAT
(75.1oF)
0.25
AC Rutting (in)

0.20 MAAT
(66.5oF)
0.15 MAAT (62.1oF)
MAAT
0.10 (47.2oF)

0.05

-
Phoenix Dallas Atlanta Minneapolis
Environmental Location
31
 For all variables being the same, the higher
the temperature of an environmental location,
the higher the AC rutting becomes.

32
40

35 Use of M-E PDG Analysis


as a Design Tool
Alligator Cracking (%)

30

25

20

15
Criteria
10

5 Design
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AC Thickness (in)
33
 AC thickness has a significant influence
upon Alligator fatigue cracking. As the
AC thickness increases, the amount of
alligator (bottom-up) fatigue cracking
decreases.

34
Distance (in)
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.00

-0.05

-0.10
AC Rutting (in)

-0.15

-0.20

-0.25

-0.30
Wander = 0
Wander = 10 in
-0.35
Wander = 24 in
-0.40

35
Distance (in)
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.00

-0.05

-0.10
Base Rutting (in)

-0.15

-0.20

-0.25

-0.30 Wander = 0
Wander = 10 in
-0.35 Wander = 24 in

-0.40

36
Distance (in)
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.00

-0.05
Subgrade Rutting (in)

-0.10

-0.15

-0.20

-0.25

-0.30 Wander = 0
Wander = 10 in
-0.35 Wander = 24 in

-0.40

37
 The more channelized that the vehicular
traffic becomes, the more severe the
pavement rutting becomes.

 The severity of the rutting is magnified for


layers near the surface.

38
12,000
Modulus of Subgrade (psi)

11,000 AC
1 ft
10,000 Base

9,000 3 ft
Compacted SG
5 ft
8,000 Natural SG
10 ft
7,000

6,000
Compacted Subgrade
5,000
Natural Subgrade
4,000
1 3 5 7 9 11

GWT Depth (ft)


39
 Presence of GWT near / within unbound
material layers can significantly alter the
material moduli and hence increase
pavement damage.

40
2500
Thermal Cracking Amount

2000

1500
(ft/mile)

1000

500

0
PG70-22 PG64-28 PG58-34
Binder Grade

41
 Binder stiffness has the greatest influence
upon Thermal Fracture within a cold
environment.

 As the binder stiffness (or surface layer


stiffness) increases, the AC Thermal Fracture
increases.

42
2500
Min. Air Temp.
(-47oF)
Thermal Cracking Amount (ft/mile)

2000 Min. Air Temp.


(-34oF)

1500

1000

500 Min. Air Temp.


(-29oF)
Min. Air Temp.
(-15oF)
0
Barrow Fargo Billings Chicago
Environmental Location

43
 Thermal Cracking cumulatively increases over time.
 Combined property of binder content and air void has
an influence upon the Thermal Fracture.
 In general, AC Thermal Fracture decreases with an
increase of binder content and a decrease in air void.

44
 M-E PDG is the most powerful Pavement-Material
Analysis-Design Tool ever developed.
 M-E PDG will lead to a more fundamental analysis of
the consequences associated with the material-
structure - environmental interaction.
 M-E PDG has the potential for increasing pavement
performance and life while decreasing life cycle costs
associated with new and rehab scenarios.

45
Implementation Considerations

 Be careful of blind application of Modified asphalts


in MEPDG.

 E* value may be okay


 Distress performance prediction models (ac
rutting, fatigue cracking and thermal fracture)
generally calibrated with conventional asphalt
mixtures
 Performance prediction of Modified AC Mixtures
questionable
 Suggest local calibration

46
Implementation Considerations

 MEPDG is an excellent product and major enhancement to


current technology; however the technology is still evolving:
 Do not expect perfect predictions

 Need to locally calibrate to actual field performance

 Must be prepared to Conduct Trench Sections!!!!!!


 Need to have a well defined nationally coordinated
approach to develop planned model enhancements
 Reflective cracking
 Rutting and fatigue cracking model enhancements
 Chemically Stabilized Materials Calibration
 Performance of modified mixtures
 Refinement of level standard deviations for use in
reliability models

47